Analysis of Hard Cap -- Who does it hurt?

[finnegan]

It seems that the bottom line is that the large market teams with the high payrolls are the only ones who are impacted. Maybe 5 or 6 teams in total. All of the rest seem to respect the cap.

With the soft cap the reasoning of the large market teams seems quite obvious:

1. They can tow the line of the soft cap, and share their extra profits with the other 29 teams or,
2. They can far exceed the cap and invest that money in player who they think can take them to the next level, using the money that they would have to share with other teams they still pay to the other teams but through the luxury tax.

The answer is clear impose a hard cap and give teams three years to comply.

[StocktonShorts]

The answer is clear impose a hard cap and give teams three years to comply.

The tricky thing with a true hard cap is that it removes all of the advantages in place in the current system to help teams re-sign their stars.

How many star players are going to stay in Utah after their rookie deals (assuming they still exist) if they can get the same contract anywhere in the league? Are small market teams really ready to give up the concept of Bird rights?

How long would it have taken the Jazz to recover from the AK contract if there was a hard cap in place?

[The59Sound]

Yeah. Never understood why a hard cap is supposed to be our savior.

[jazzfan1971]

Because it'll help stop the superteams, level the playing field a bit.

[DelaneyRudd]

It hurts teams that draft well. It helps bad teams, regardless of how they became bad. It hurts good teams regardless of how they became good. It helps teams that are under the cap, and it helps teams that do not want to spend too much. The negatives are amplified in Basketball because there are so few players on a team. A soft cap with less guarantees on salary is the way for teams to be in control of their expenses. Eliminate ways to circumvent, such as signing free agents, then sign your bird player (like Wade).

Create longer term payouts on contracts that increase in value if the value of the league increases over the years. Give the current players a reason to care about the long term investments in infrastructure that is the huge chunk that is the difference between the two sides numbers.

[StocktonShorts]

Because it'll help stop the superteams, level the playing field a bit.

Not sure who you mean by "superteams", but I don't think a hard-cap wouldn't have prevented what happened with Miami. What happened in Miami was the fruition of a few years of planning by all involved (I truly believe this). They could've accomplished it within the constraints of a hard cap. If you want examples of abuses of the current soft cap, Dallas and the Lakers are at the top of the list. Dallas collected a ton of bad contracts on their way to the title and never suffered because of it.

It hurts teams that draft well. It helps bad teams, regardless of how they became bad. It hurts good teams regardless of how they became good. It helps teams that are under the cap, and it helps teams that do not want to spend too much. The negatives are amplified in Basketball because there are so few players on a team.

Well put.

A soft cap with less guarantees on salary is the way for teams to be in control of their expenses.

Any new deal definitely has to limiting the amount of guaranteed money.

Eliminate ways to circumvent, such as signing free agents, then sign your bird player (like Wade).

Actually this is addressed in the current cap through cap holds -- a team with Bird rights is still on the hook for that player's max contract unless they renounce his rights. So there's no benefit to signing other players before signing your Bird player.

[DelaneyRudd]

It can be argued that the whole "rewarding good GMing" is a moot point to anyone who isn't on a site called RealGM. We talk about how it's unfair that LA and New York shouldn't have a random advantage for being big, why should San Antonio have a random advantage for hiring some dude whom no one goes to games to watch. Do people who happen to live in Minnesota or Georgia not deserve a shot at a home team with a chance?

I don't support the above statement, but if your job is trying to maximize the value of the league, why would you think it's bad to consider?

[finnegan]

...it removes all of the advantages in place in the current system to help teams re-sign their stars.

Actually, I think that it achieves the exact opposite. It blocks New York and Miami from sigining 3-4 max players, so in theory those max players would be looking elsewhere for a max deal because there are only so many max deals with a hard cap.

My geuss is that this super star collaboration like Miami and Boston benefited from will not happen anymore. Which is a good thing!

[finnegan]

It hurts teams that draft well.

I don't know of any team that drafts so well year after year, that it limits their ability to re-sign their own max players who they have developed. Can you think of an example?

It helps bad teams, regardless of how they became bad. It hurts good teams regardless of how they became good.

I do not understand your reasoning here!

It helps teams that are under the cap, and it helps teams that do not want to spend too much.

Yes. Like the Miller family, who also refuses to sell a portion of the team to someone with deeper pockets. It is a win for Jazz fans!

[Lava Rock Kid]

Their has to be a had cap, Small market teams cannot beat the large ones when the large ones spend twice as much.

Look at the last few years,
Utah traded, maynor, Williams Didnt resign brewer Korver, Mathews, Boozer mainly because of money.

LA
Resigned Pau and Kobe, picked up Artest and others, every year the Lakers use the mid level even though they spend alot more than Utah.

Our team loses good assets, because of financial constraints. LA has no financial constraints. You cannot consistently win in a situation like this.

[Lava Rock Kid]

One Idea that I would float around is that if you cannot get a hard cap which would be ideal,

Then punish those over the cap with forfeiture of draft picks. If you spend a dollar over X amount than you do not keep any picks in the next years draft even if it is a number 1 pick. These picks slots will allow teams behind you in the draft order to move up.

[3960HOOD]

I prefer revenue sharing over a hard cap.

[The59Sound]

People act as if the Jazz are 29th in payroll every year. In that scenario laid out by Lava, we'd be forfeiting draft picks left and right.

[kebutah]

If a hard cap is set at a level where all teams can afford to spend not at a higher level for the LA and NY teams it could be helpful to small market teams. The hard caps in NHL and NFL have not eliminated the spending differences between the have and have nots.

[finnegan]

The hard caps in NHL and NFL have not eliminated the spending differences between the have and have nots.

The only way that is even remotely possible is if the NHL and HFL set the hard cap too high, becuase you are not allowed to spend past the hard cap.

If that is true, then maybe it is an an advantage to the NBA owners of going from a soft cap system to a hard cap system, because the new hard cap will likely be equivalent to the old soft cap.

In other words, the hard cap will bring greater equality to the small market teams like the Jazz.

[finnegan]

Kind of staggering that 100% said "Yes" or "Maybe" that a hard cap would be the most fair to the most teams, with 88% of those voting saying "Yes."

[DelaneyRudd]

I have no qualms calling a large number of people less inteligent than myself. None at all. I wrote maybe because it could be high, it could be low.

[countrybama24]

It sure would bone the free agent market even more for small market teams.

[DelaneyRudd]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flash ... lId=123750

Utah Cares